Tort Law, Occupiers Liability Act of 1984 - Essay Example

Tort Law Question Occupiers Liability Act of 1984 entails covering the occupiers’ liability for those who are trespassing. This meant that occupiers are under obligation of owing a duty to the trespassers or even visitors (Jones, 1984). This Act requires that the occupier does not pose any danger to trespassers or any visitors while doing their constructions. The argument behind this case is that the occupier conducting the construction operations is aware of the danger and therefore is under obligation to offer protection. One such case which was controversial was the British Railway Board v Herrington 1972 AC 877. This case had to be referred to the Law Commission due to the uncertainties and lack of sufficient material to make judgment about the case. Another similar case was that of Addie v Dunbreck 1929 AC 358. In this case the judge ruled on that the owner of the land must avoid negligently avoid harming the trespassers. This judgment raised the question about duty of care. Because of this case a commission was formed in the UK to investigate this case which later decided that the legislature should come up with the duty of care to be owed to uninvited visitors or trespassers (Mullis, 2011). This proposal was also endorsed by the Pearson commission. The case of White v The council of the City and District of St Albans 1990 was the first case that endorsed this law. In the ruling of this case, the judge ordered that all working and especially construction places be well fenced to a reasonable ground to prevent damage and injury to the trespassers. It is however important to notice that the 1984 ACT has no valid statements which indicate that the duty can be excluded from the occupier. On the other hand there has been suggestions that this is possible especially because since there are no provisions which forbids the exclusion. The 1977 Unfair Contract Terms Act seems to weaken this law since it does not apply to the 1984 Act. The 1957 Act is however supported by the case of Beddeley v Earl Granville 1887 19 QBD 423 which shows that a statutory duty is not under any form of exclusion however no case is law is directly relating to the Act. Question 2 Strict liability means that a party is imposed with a liability without evidence of committing any offense such as negligence or tort (Alix Adams, 2012). For quite a long time strict liability have been applied to animal cases since animals do not have the right conscious to make decisions (Elliott & Quinn, 2007). The defendant find him/herself imposed with a liability without fault for any damages. Strict liability developed in the 19th century where a sanction or an obligation to compensate for any damages was to follow from reproachable behavior. Strict liability came into play when fault based liability was seen biased as it could not balance the reason that due care was not directed to avoiding the risk but to handle the risk in a suitable manner. Fault based approach is used in conditions where people have suffered injuries due to careless acts and requires compensation. Most of the time strict liability law is referred to as negligent tort which reasonably may lead to any harm or danger. The strict liability law is different because it covers damages not conducted by the party in question. For example, the law covers the animals and the owner of dogs, cats, cows, sheep and goats is under obligation to take care of them. In case of any harm, the owner of the dogs is completely responsible for punishment by the law. The case is stricter to those who keep wild animals. If these animals escape and cause harm or any danger the owner is responsible for compensation due to the well-known fact of the nature if such animals. Question 3 A tort is any legal or civil injury or harm that is caused or directed to a person, company or a party. Negligent tort is involved in situations where people engage in carelessness and negligence and eventually harm people. For someone to succeed in in an action for negligence there must be the following three elements, The defendant must be owing the claimant a duty of care The defendant is involved in breach of duty of care and, The reasonable foreseeable damage is a result of breach of duty of care A form of strict liability tort imposes liability to an individual or a party despite the fact that the party is not involved in any fault in any way. Within the common law and the Australian Consumer Law, negligence by a professional is perceived to have taken place when one fails to act diligently towards his or her clients resulting in material or emotional loss. As already stated above, the following elements constitute negligent tort (Bermingham & Brennan, 2008). Andy and Suzan will be able to claim their compensation. It is evident that there is a negligent tort performed by Raymond. This is because Raymond is aware of Terry’s ignorance when it comes to operating the forklift machine. The damage and harm caused on any are due to negligence and for this reason, Andy is liable for compensation. For this reason Raymond will be charged under vicarious liability which imposes responsibility of upon one person for the failure of the other with whom the person shares a special relationship. This exactly explains the case of Andy and Terry together with Raymond. They both work in the same place and each of them has a responsibility to care for the other while at work place. Suzan is also liable for compensation for the damage caused on her car. She might not get compensated for her health because of negligence. She was driving without putting on a seatbelt. This is negligence and this is what will deny her compensation. She will however be compensated for her vehicle which is covered under the third party insurance. The insurance party will award Suzan compensation for her vehicle under the vicarious liability tort which requires responsibility from each other. Bibliography Alix Adams. (2012). Law for Business Students 7 Ed. New York: Pearson. Bermingham, V., & Brennan, C. (2008). Tort Law. New York: Oxford University Press. Elliott, C., & Quinn, F. (2007). Tort Law (6th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman. Jones, M. (1984). The Occupiers Liability Act 1984. New York: Blackwell Publishers. Mullis, A. (2011). Duties to trespassers under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984". Conveyancer and Property Lawyer. New York: Sweet & Maxwell. Read More